User reviews

Conrad Hall went out with a bang. The great film photographer finished his illustrious career with this movie before passing on. He did himself proud as this is one of the best-looking crime films you'll ever see.

Of course, the acting ain't bad when you have Tom Hanks and Paul Newman playing the leads! The amount of action in here is just right, too: not too much; not too little.

None of the characters in here, frankly, are "good guys" as Hanks is a professional hit-man for town boss Newman. Hanks' only redeeming quality is not wanting his young son to wind up a killer like him, although he does teach him how to be the getaway man in robberies! Huh?

As good as the acting is and as interesting as the story is, the real star of this film is cinematographer Hall, who paints scene after beautiful scene with his lens. His work is just awesome.

This couldn't have been better. The strong restraints on Mike Sullivan's expressions couldn't have been portrayed in any other way. Tom Hanks delivers the best performance of his career. Young Tyler Hoechlin drives an emotional wheel; playing the basis character for the story. And veteran Paul Newman gives one of his best character performances in a long time.

This film is based on a bold graphic novel by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner. This is a father/son story which basically employs the two candidates solely unfit for the roles. Mike Sullivan had no father as a child, so John Rooney took him in. Although a generous man, Mr. Rooney involved himself in organized crime. Therefore, the debt of Sullivan was only to be paid off in involving himself in the business. Now, Sullivan has a wife and two children and is trying to keep his children safe, but at the same time pay back his boss. The events to follow, will test Sullivan's loyalty and embrace his family's fate.

With a great adaptation by David Self, the dialogue comes out seldomly, but yet very virtuous. The story unfolds in a beautiful 1930's setting (Brilliant Art Direction by Richard L. Johnson & Nancy Haigh) covered with a dark rainy (snow on the ground) exterior. Driving the story, is Thomas Newman's wonderful Irish score, settling in only when necessary.

But the most important technical element in the film is Conrad L. Hall's beautiful photography. This is some of the best cinematography I've seen; and I watch a lot of films. The scene when Mike and Michael are in the car, entering Chicago is quite impressive. The shot starts at the front of the car, revealing Mike(Hanks) through the windshield. It subsequently dollys around to the side of the car, to see Michael(Hoechlin) awakening and peering out his side window. As it continues, it trucks sideways and dollys back, completely around the car and reveals a gorgeous scenic 1930's Chicago.

With a great cast and crew, the principle man creates a brazenly amazing film. I'm talking about Sam Mendes, who made his feature film debut in 1999 with American Beauty. (won him various awards) Before American Beauty, Mendes worked as a play director for the British Theater, but decided that he wanted to move on saying that there was nothing new for him in theater. With only two films, Sam Mendes has marked himself in my book as one of the great directors (In a list of about twenty-five).

The film illuminates a brazen genre that has its hits and misses and expresses the true theme brilliantly. The photography, acting and story is phenominal. I'm still waiting for Scorcesee's Gangs of New York, but for now, I'm fully confident in saying that this is the "Best Film of the Year". Considering it's competition (Signs, Insomnia, Minority Report) thats a strong statement.

I loved so much about this movie...the time taken to develop the characters, the attention to detail, the superb performances, the stunning lighting and cinematography, the wonderful soundtrack...

It has a combined intensity and lightness of touch that won't work for anyone who wants the typical fast-paced action flick. If we lived in Elizabethan days, I'd say this movie's a bit like a Shakespearean tragedy. But since we don't, let's say it's more like a Drama-Suspense movie.

The plot is simple, but the story is complex. The movie is intelligent in the way relationships and issues are explored. Much of the story is shown rather than told, which I find makes it more subtle and moving - and which also works well for a story based on a comic book (or graphic novel). At times I felt I was actually there in the 1930s, part of this story - there was such a realistic yet dream-like quality in the style of its telling.

I don't often prefer movies to the books they were based upon, but in this case I do. (Though I did enjoy the book too.) I've bought the DVD, which is great because it has some wonderful deleted scenes and insightful commentary.

(I also took my little cousin, who's a little younger than the boy in the movie, to see it after I saw it for the first time, because he has issues at home and I wanted to use this as a way of starting a discussion on father-son issues with him. He loved it - and the discussion.)

Many have either hated, loved, or been let down by this film. Hype does terrible things to the best and worst of things. Most of the reasons i have heard for not liking this film are ridiculous. Let me just tell you, if you have not seen it yet, go see it. Even if for some reason you don't think its amazing, it will be among the best films you have seen of the year anyways. Road to Perdition is a beautiful movie, both visually and in performance. Every actor here is deserving of acclaim and Academy attention, mainly Jude Law. Any emotional detachment is intentional; It is a tragic story, one of betrayal, love, bonds, and revenge. There is no doubt this film will become a classic. Don't dare compare it with Godfather: this is a GANGSTER film, not a MAFIA movie! Godfather will never be surpassed, so don't compare to it. Road to Perdition as of now is the leading Best Picture Oscar contender. Unlike past years, it deserves it.

Road to Perdition, a movie undeservedly overlooked at that year Oscars is the second work of Sam Mendes (and in my opinion his best work), a director who three years before won Oscar for his widely acclaimed but controversial American Beauty. This is a terrific movie, and at the same time ultimately poignant and sad.

It's a story of a relatively wealthy and happy family from outward appearance during difficult times of Depression when the, Michael Sullivan, a father of two children, played by great Tom Hanks (I'm not his admirer but ought to say that) is a hit-man for local mafia boss, played by Paul Newman. His eldest son, a thirteen years boy Michael Sullivan Jr., perfectly played by young Tyler Hoechlin, after years of blissful ignorance finds out what is his father job and on what money their family live. Prompted by his curiosity and his aspiration to know truth he accidentally becomes a witness of a murder, committed by John Rooney, son of his father boss. Such discovery strikes an innocent soul and it caused numerous events that changed his life forever. The atmosphere of the period, all the backgrounds and decorations are perfectly created, editing and cinematography are almost flawless while the story is well written. But the main line of the movie, the most important moments and points of the movie and the key factor of the movie success are difficult father-son relations in bad times. They are shown so deeply, strong and believable. Tom Hanks does excellent and has one of the best performances of his career in a quite unusual role for him and all acting across the board is superb. Finally worth to mention a very nice score by Paul Newman and in the result we get an outstanding work of all people involved in making this beautiful (but one more time sad) masterpiece. I believe Road to Perdition belongs to greatest achievements of film-making of this decade and undoubtedly one of the best films of the year.

My grade 10 out of 10

I f you thought Sam Mendes' first film, the much heralded American BEAUTY was a movie with style to spare, wait until you see his highly anticipated second effort, the unrelentingly grim 30's gangster melodrama ROAD TO PERDITION. Some critics have hailed this new movie as a worthy successor to THE GODFATHER, a rash judgment made by several reviewers taken with Mr. Mendes' extraordinary technical prowess. If the mechanics of movie making are what make a picture great, then yes, ROAD TO PERDITION is a distant cousin to THE GODFATHER in terms of what it achieves in cinematography, editing, music scoring and sound. What it doesn't have is a resonance that all great stories and some very rare movies have that stay with the viewer long after the experience of reading or seeing it is over. As with American BEAUTY, there is a cold, distancing feel to this movie, despite some very tense scenes involving paternal love, loyalty and betrayal.

This story of a hit man (Tom Hanks) and his relationship to a surrogate father - figure who is also his boss, an elderly Irish mob leader (Paul Newman) , seems to have been culled from innumerable gangster movies of years past. The father /son motif that hangs over this picture is so heavy handed in its treatment that there is not much room for spontaneity ; the entire enterprise has been very carefully wrought , and nearly all the dialog is delivered with an air of great portent : this is obviously a gangster film , hence the requisite amount of violence and bloodshed , but the film is nearly devoid of any humor to speak of ; only in scenes involving a young boy driving a getaway car in a cunningly edited montage is there any sense of lightheartedness to leaven the pervasive sense of doom.

That being said , I have nothing but the highest praise for the stunning look of this film ; indeed , it is not an overstatement to say that this is one of the most beautifully photographed and designed movies I have ever seen. Veteran cameraman Conrad Hall will very likely win another Oscar for his work here . The production 's sets and costumes are just as exemplary ; in fact , the entire film is a technical marvel. Mr. Mendes continues to astonish with his vivid use of color, and he and Mr. Hall again make very dramatic use of red blood splattered against pale colored walls , all the more effective and disconcerting due to the preponderance of blacks, blues and grays that dominate the movie's color scheme.

If I have failed to duly note the acting , it is not because the actors do not purport themselves ably ; everyone in the film is top notch, with special mention going to the two malevolent bad guys : Daniel Craig is the classic "man you love to hate", the spoiled, impulsive son of Newman's gangster father ; and an almost unrecognizable Jude Law as an especially slimy miscreant who goes on pursuit of Hanks and his son and figures very importantly in the film's riveting second half. But acting in a movie this dazzling is bound to take a back seat to the photographic fireworks on display here. If a Rolls-Royce was a movie , I've no doubt it would look like ROAD TO PERDITION.

Road to Perdition is a classed-up mob story about revenge. With a stellar cast and Oscar-winning cinematography, the film is a dark meditation on vengeance and the fate of one's soul. Heavyweights Tom Hanks and Paul Newman anchor this film, with great support from Daniel Craig and Jude Law. This is a brooding film, but I think it does a great job of conveying its more hopeful messages through some stunning photography.

Let me start this off by saying this movie is beautiful. By a technical standpoint, perfection was achieved. I'll remember this movie as proof of example; outstanding direction/cinematography cannot fully compensate for a lackluster plot.

On paper, the plot is an average set up. Relationships in a crime family are tested, but none are ever stretched too far. In this sense it feels somewhat familiar and not very original.

But what does keep this movie from being average-blah, is the care put into EVERY shot. I give a huge amount of credit to the cinematographer. A good amount of noticeable techniques were used. I particularly liked one symmetrical pillar shot that used a zoom in dolly in trick. A slight variation of the Vertigo introduced, zoom in dolly out.

But with all of these wonderful shots I noticed something. There was so much technically stunning camera work, I found myself completely drawn out of the story. Was this done intentionally? To some degree I think so. This nicely compliments the dark and rainy 1930's settings.

Noticing this I tried to put more thought into the plot. There basically was none. The characters were cold and lacked development. Any dialog is important and used sparingly. I couldn't stop myself from drawing comparison to The Godfather. What Road to Perdition lacks is any underlying intensity between the characters. I never feel like they were a tight-knit family and do feel as if I'm simply watching characters play their parts. The story has no poetry and feels more like a collection of parts that aren't worth its sum.

I appreciate it in its stunning visuals, but once the credit rolled I felt nothing. And I find no reason to return back to it.

Even though I believe this is based on a graphic novel, This movie looks like the result of someone who enamored with the 20s who wanted a vehicle for Hanks/Newman. There wasn't enough action to be an action film, there's not enough surprises to be a suspense film, and not characterization to care about the characters - particularly Michael Junior. All the tender moments with piano seemed like someone was trying to emulate Frank Darabond a bit too much. I guess I just sensed a profound lack of depth - nothing provoked any thoughts for me. Cinematography was excellent, though, as were Hank's and Newman's performances.

`Road to Perdition' is a rocky road of revenge and reconciliation, punctuated by some gorgeous Conrad Hall cinematography. Tom Hanks is a 1930's mob hit man whose 12 year-old son sees him commit a murder. The rest of Director Sam Mendes' (`American Beauty') film is the boy's coming to terms with that knowledge. Paul Newman plays a `godfather,' a father to his errant son and like a father to Hanks.

Laced throughout are 3 father-son relationships, which seem to move toward the violent ends reserved for mobsters. Hanks' son is ambivalent about his dad, whom he seems to adore yet hold accountable for his crimes. Newman's son is like Sonny Corleone, too loose to be in charge and no heir apparent; Hanks owes his lifestyle to Newman-all these relationships are subsumed by the business needs of the larger organization.

This is noir with a dark palette, costuming in clothes metaphorically heavy, and sounding often as stylized and minimal as the murders Hanks commits. `Road to Perdition' lacks the grandeur of Coppola's `Godfather' epic, but it succeeds in evoking an old-testament judicial system where eye meets eye and tooth savages tooth. The revenge motif is too dominant to let the film rest on the promising father-son motif.

Hanks' son learns about morality and decides about following in his father's footsteps. Hanks gives another controlled performance, and Paul Newman lets us know there is room for one more powerful screen godfather.

Ever since Coppola's "The Godfather" came out in 1972, just about every auteur director working in America seems to have cherished the ambition to produce his own "Godfather", hence crime epics like Scorsese's "Goodfellas", Leone's "Once Upon a Time in America", De Palma's remake of "Scarface", the Coen brothers' "Miller's Crossing" and Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction". Following his acclaimed first film "American Beauty", Sam Mendes obviously decided that the it was time to make his own "Godfather", because his second film, "Road to Perdition" is a gangster drama in this tradition.

Michael Sullivan junior is a twelve-year-old schoolboy from Rock Island, Illinois. Although it is the early 1930s, the time of the Great Depression, the Irish-American Sullivan family enjoys a comfortable upper-middle-class existence. Young Michael, however, is puzzled about what his father, Michael senior, actually does for a living; all he knows is that he works for John Rooney, a seemingly respectable elderly gentleman who treats the boy like an adopted grandson. The truth, however, is that Rooney is an organised crime boss and Michael senior his "enforcer" When young Michael stumbles on the truth, after witnessing Rooney's unstable son Connor killing another gang member, he inadvertently puts himself and his family in danger. In an attempt to eliminate the boy, Connor murders his mother Annie and younger brother Peter, forcing Michael and his father to flee for their lives. The rest of the film deals with Michael senior's search for revenge for the deaths of Annie and Peter.

The title can be understood on a number of levels. On the most literal, Perdition is a town to which some of the characters travel at the end of the film. On another level, "perdition" can be interpreted as meaning "death" or "destruction", and on a third "eternal damnation". Perhaps the film's bleakest moment comes when Rooney says to Michael senior that "none of us have any hope of getting to Heaven". This is not just a figure of speech. Rooney is a practising Catholic who has nevertheless embarked upon a way of life which he believes can only result in his damnation to Hell. The film's emphasis on the futility and sterility of the criminal lifestyle is reminiscent of that great British gangster movie, "Get Carter".

The bleakness of the film's moral message is emphasised by its visual style, dominated by a muted palette with dark backgrounds and dull greens and greys. Filming took place in winter and early spring, often against a backdrop of snow and rain; Mendes intended the cold, bleak look of the film to reflect the characters' emotional states. Water, snow and ice are recurrent visual images throughout, from the snowy opening funeral scene with a corpse on ice to the closing scenes by Lake Michigan. The film's emotional impact is also heightened by Thomas Newman's evocative, elegiac musical score.

The film's two most important characters are Michael senior and Rooney, who loves Michael like a son, and yet tries to kill him to save his biological son Connor. In some ways the audience can sympathise with Michael, a man who has suffered unjustly through the deaths of two innocent family members, and this sense of identification is strengthened by the casting of Tom Hanks, an actor normally seen as sympathetic characters. On another level, however, we recognise Michael's moral responsibility for his own predicament as one of those who live by the sword and are therefore doomed to die by the sword as each killing fuels the cycle of revenge and leads to yet more bloodshed. This is one of Hanks's most accomplished performances as he is able to show both these sides of Michael's personality. One of his redeeming characteristics is his love for his son, who he hopes will be able to lead a better life than the one he himself has led, and the film ends on a note of hope in this regard.

This was to be Paul Newman's last appearance in a feature film, and it was to be a fine end to his distinguished career. Although Rooney is a lifelong villain, he is not wholly evil, but a tired, disillusioned old man, in Wilfred Owen's phrase a "devil sick of sin", who retains enough moral awareness to realise that his false system of values has blighted his life and the lives of others. The other notable performance comes from an almost unrecognisable Jude Law as Harlen Maguire, the hit-man sent by Rooney to kill Sullivan. Maguire also works as a crime-scene photographer, and the relish with which he photographs murder victims reveals a macabre fascination with death. In his remorselessness Maguire recalls Anton Chigurh, the hit-man played by Javier Bardem in "No Country for Old Men", although to my mind Law gives a better performance than Bardem. Maguire, for all his evil, is a recognisable human being whereas the one-dimensional Chigurh seems more like a personification of some abstraction such as "death" or "fate".

The "my own Godfather" syndrome means that the organised crime epic has become something of an overcrowded field in the last forty years, but I must say that "Road to Perdition" is one of the most impressive entries in that field. I was impressed by Conrad Hall's breathtaking cinematography, by the standards of acting and by an intelligent script with its themes of father-son relationships, of the ethics of revenge and of the consequences of violence. Above all I was impressed by Mendes's ability to weave all these elements into a mythic whole, an epic which manages to say something new in the otherwise clichéd gangster genre. When I reviewed "American Beauty" I said that Mendes had joined that elite group of directors (Orson Wells, Sidney Lumet, Bryan Forbes, Stuart Rosenberg) who had made a masterpiece with their first film. With "Road to Perdition" he has joined that even smaller group who have made masterpieces with their first two films. 9/10

Is life another box of chocolate? Perhaps this times a rather bloody and morally reprehensible one. Is this road leading anywhere worth going? Road to Perdition tries so hard to be something that ultimately it can not accomplished that all its efforts seems so prefabricated, so full of mannerisms, so contrived that there is no room for reality or even true feelings to influence or penetrate neither the story narrative or its delivery.

The film feels totally empty at its core, empty of those same values that in spite of the bloodshed and violence of the gangster world it portraits it pretends to highlight: love between father and son, filial trust, honesty. It plays with the audience natural alliance to its main character and its moral ambiguity by casting Tom Hanks as a distasteful hero but giving him an aura of respectability by focusing in his caring fatherly love.

The film's contrived cinematography, the soft focus brown and sepia tones of the photography, the immaculate new repro-sets, the constant intrusion of a highly sentimental sound track that feels the need to emphasise every little nuance of the plot seems to try to make the audience an accomplice in hiding the true nature of the film's main character: a merciless gangster and a miserable b****rd. This is not The Sopranos territory where moral ambiguities and soul searching dilemmas constantly mark the plot neither The Godfather's world where character development and a genuine sense of realism prevails through the questionable characters that inhabits it.

I found the film so incredible distasteful, so sickening in its Hollywood sugary levels of story telling that it makes me seriously doubt about the future abilities to mix popular culture with subtle touches of sensitivity that Sam Mendes so clearly demonstrated in his first film. Let's hope he still has something to say and he is yet not totally lost, at such a tender age, to that road leading to vacuous and meaningless success.and with another Oscar waiting at the end of it.

...although it is very difficult to compare it to the likes of the Godfather, which many critics have talked of following the release of Sam Mendes' (Best Picture of 99 American Beauty Mendes' 2nd effort) Road to Perdition. However in truth, this film takes place in a universe all its own, giving connection to Al Capone here and there and scenes of mid-west life in depression era America, yet the story with its plot and characters are what matter and Mendes and screenwriter Self know this from first frame to last.

Tom Hanks gets another challenge this time (after a retard, an AIDS patient, an island survivor and a conflicted World War 2 soldier), in getting a role of the likes of Michael Sullivan Sr, a expertly trained hit-man for boss John Rooney (Paul Newman in one of the years best supporting roles), since his is a life that is cold and ruthless and sometimes compassionate given the circumstances, and Hanks pulls it off in his compelling fashion and it can be seen even in the more subtle scenes, like with his son Michael Jr. They go on the run when Rooney's son Conner shoots Hanks' other son and wife, and the story unfolds from there, which includes a juicy, sinister persona sent on Hanks' tale named Maguire (Jude Law).

With photography by Conrad L. Hall that ranks with some of the best so far this decade and performances made to match the edge, this is THE dramatic thriller of the season; one of the best pictures of the year. A+

In 1931, Sullivan is a mob enforcer living in Rock Island, Illinois, with a wife and two young boys, the children unaware of what their father does. Sullivan gets into a harsh dispute with Connor, the son of his boss, and it turns bloody, with Sullivan's wife and younger son murdered, but Sullivan manages to escape with the older son. Sullivan flees with his son in the family car to Chicago to meet with boss Frank Nitti, offering to work for him in exchange for permission to kill Connor. Nitti refuses and the battle begins.

The performers all do well, but the movie's real power is the period cinematography, alternating between light and dark but always grim. Based on a Max Allen Collins comic of the same name, the movie is different from it but still packs a punch.

This is a splendid movie which fancies itself a revenger father called Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) , he is right-hand to Mr Rooney (Paul Newman) who has a nasty son (Daniel Craig) . When the mob enforcer's son (Tyler Hoechlin) spies , he's in for a shock and things go wrong . All of them put Sullivan at odds with Rooney who is forced to side with his son , making Sullivan an enemy of the mob . Sullivan then takes action to protect his family and to put an end to the threat . Forcing him and his son on the run and to take to the road . Pray for Michael Sullivan . Every father is a hero to his son . Every son holds the future for his father . The innocence of a son is surpassed only by the father's will to save it.

Based on the dark graphic novel by Max Collins and Richard Piers Rayner adapted faithfully by David Self. Anyone with a fondness for mobster movies will find quite a bit to admire this fabulous film . This is a magnificent picture , except that the yarn turns so much bathetic and extremely sentimental , at times . This thought-provoking material blends comic-strip , a tridimensional kid's eye pastiche and ordinary mobster movie , though remains fundamentally in comic-book wake . Cast is pretty well , giving outstanding acting . Highlighted by Hanks' acting as father down a path of redemption and revenge , though some critics state Tom is fatally miscast . Paul Newman as mob boss and Daniel Craig are good , the latter as the rutlhess partner in crime . Jude Law as the terminally self-conscious hit-man steals of show as a whacked weegee-style photographer . Other prestigious actors appearing are the following ones : Dylan Baker , Ciran Hinds , Jennifer Jason Leigh and Stanley Tucci as Frank Nitti

The film packs a colorful and glimmering cinematography by Conrad Hall , who previously brought American Beauty , to whom the film is dedicated . It was shot in various locations as Grand Rapids, Saugatuck, Zeeland , Michigan , Pullman , Chicago , Geneva , Evanston , Momence , Beecher , Thornton , Illinois . As well as sensitive and rousing musical score by Thomas Newman. Being lavishly produced by Joan Bradshaw , Walter F. Parkes , Dean Zanuck , Richard D. Zanuck and Sam Mendes himself . This gangster picture was well directed by Sam Mendes , though with no originaly . Mendes is a good director who has made some successful films played by important actors , such as : Jarhead , American Beauty , Revolutionary road , this Road to perdition and two Bond movies : Skyfall and Spectre . Rating: 8/10 . Above average. Well worth watching . Essential and indispensable watching .

To see Sam Mendes team up once again with Conrad Hall is see and hope for the same excellent result in filmmaking which was accomplished with American Beauty. Somehow though, it did not happen. Road to Perdition is too long and misses the mark, the idea of fathers and sons and redemption vs. perdition, is one that could have been used with a much more poignant and visceral message and deliverance. What's more, the right actors were all there for Mr. Mendes. Finding oneself in the company of Paul Newman, Tom Hanks and Jude Law certainly gives one room for superior performances, but there is no punch to the story and the actors all seem somewhat misused (not to be mistaken with miscast) by the slow pace of the film and the lack of a definitive or strong arc in story.

Mr. Hall, as per usual, shoots the film with beauty and style, yet it is frustrating to watch the camera not come in close at moments that could have been so much more if we were allowed closer to the faces in frame. But it is the director's picture, so I find Mr. Mendes to be the one at fault for this oversight. I also thought the editors could have done a better job in the cutting room. While I have no problem with movies that run long, I do have a problem with movies that run long due to not being trimmed down to the essence of the story. The film, in that sense, was somewhat vague and rambling.

All of the above being said, both Paul Newman and Tom Hanks were right on the money. So also was Jude Law, although it seemed as if his part in the film was not maximized to what it could have been. Close ups or no, Conrad Hall hits paydirt with his cinematography and given that this was his last film, it is a consoling thought to think that he left at the top of his game. One of the best, he weaves a dark tapestry with careful use of light to convey the world of his subjects.

Certainly not a bad film but a little disappointing given the expectations going into it. And for $80 million dollars, I believe they could have done a much better job than this.

Acting This film is a very well acted film. I will say that the performances are slightly weak at times; but for the most part, the acting is very good. The only actor that blew me away with his performance was Jude Law as Harlen Maguire. He was incredible! Tom Hanks seemed alittle unsure at at a few points throughout the film but he too was incredible. Paul Newman, good as always. Cinematography This is what made the movie a masterpiece (and I rarely use that word). Conrad Hall is a true genius. If at any point in the movie you were to pause it, you will see the delicately crafted work of this man. He sets up every shot so that nothing is left out. When the camera is still, there is a postcard like quality to the screen. When the camera is moving, every shot is planned to understated perfection. But it doesn't stop there. Conrads choice of colors and contrast between light and dark settings is a work of art. The way he lights the set is some of the most amazing lighting work I've seen. His work on this movie made it what it is. This movie is at the top of the list for best Cinematography with LOTR, Black Hawk Down, Hero, CTHD, Moulin Rouge, and Vertigo. Story People will say this movie is a 1930s gangster flick but, I believe they missed the point of the movie. It is a love story about a hit-man who fails in trying to protect his son from the life he chose. It is a brilliantly crafted story that unfolds into a beautiful bond between two people who have nothing but each other. The screen Writing is worthy of an Oscar. Music Thomas Newman conducts a sad but hopeful score to intensify this sad but hopeful story. The music is some of the most beautiful and moving scores I've herd. Direction Sam Mendes is a new director with a feel of an experienced director. The symbols he uses and the performances he gets from his actors is a rarity in todays film-making world. I will be on the lookout for the next Sam Mendes Film. 10/10 one of the most moving and beautiful movies I've ever seen.

This is a tricky one for me to review. On one hand, Road to Perdition is an expertly made film that gets all the technical aspects right. Sam Mendes' direction and Conard L. Hall's cinematography are both fantastic and Tom Hanks gives a great performance. But on the other hand, when the film ended, I was left somewhat dissatisfied. I felt like I needed more. It's hard to put into words but I'll do my best.

Road to Perdition was originally a comic book that was inspired by the great Lone Wolf and Cub series. Many of the same themes from the comic are present in the film, themes of fatherhood, vengeance, and redemption but it all feels very surface-level. All of the characters in the film are classic archetypes that we've seen numerous times before and the film doesn't really expose or showcase the deeper side to any of these characters. What we see on screen is what we get. As I said, very surface level, and I felt emotionally dethatched because of that.

Also, the score by Thomas Newman was very hit-or-miss for me. In its more somber moments, the score was great, but then there were moments when the score felt too whimsical and out of place. It stuck out to me numerous times while watching the film.

Overall, Road to Perdition is far from being a bad movie, I certainly liked it more than I disliked it. Both the direction and cinematography go a long way to make this film a very worthwhile watch. But at the end of the day, I wanted a gangster film that was more impactful emotionally and have characters who had a little bit more depth and complexity.

There was a lot of great acting in this movie, and Sam Mendes and his crew should be commended for how beautifully pictured "Road to Perdition" turned out, but honestly, I left this movie completely unmoved. I didn't care a whit about any characters, save for Sullivan's wife and kids, and that was only because they were the only innocents.

I'm very surprised that I didn't like this movie - Hanks was good against type, Jude Law was creepy, and the kid was creepier. With about 20 minutes to go, however, it was obvious what was going to happen. Ten minutes later, I was ready to go.

Lots of hype doesn't make a movie "the best gangster movie ever," as I've seen written here.